Tuesday, 2 August 2022

Environment and Planning Committee

Inquiry into the Protections within the Victorian Planning Framework

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:43): Pursuant to standing order 23.29, I lay on the table an interim report from the Environment and Planning Committee on the inquiry into the protections within the Victorian planning framework, including an appendix, extracts of proceedings and minority reports. I move:

That the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ms TERPSTRA: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

On 28 October 2020 the Legislative Council agreed to a motion requiring the Environment and Planning Committee to inquire into, consider and report by June 2022 on the adequacy of the planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Victorian planning framework in relation to planning and heritage protection.

There were six broad areas of the inquiry, and they were, in broad brush strokes: (1) the high cost of housing; (2) environmental sustainability and vegetation protection; (3) delivering certainty and fairness in planning decisions—and this also touched on things like mandatory height limits, green wedge protections and VCAT appeal processes, amongst other things; (4) the adequacy of the heritage protections in Victoria, including regarding tree removal; (5) ensuring residential zones are delivering for the type of housing that communities want; and (6) any other matters that the committee considered relevant. The full terms of reference are of course set out in the report.

The original referral for this report was for it to be a desktop-style review; however, there were 287 written submissions from individuals, groups or organisations, which gave the committee a breadth of information to consider. I would like to thank each submitter for providing the committee with their written evidence for our consideration. I do appreciate the time, dedication and commitment that many submitters have given in providing that for the committee to consider, and again I thank them for their efforts.

Although the terms of reference were referred to the committee by the Legislative Council some time ago, the committee already had four substantial inquiries in a queue, and in accordance with its practice, each inquiry was completed in the order in which it was referred by the house. The timing of the referral was and remains a matter for the crossbench member who sought it. Consequently, by the time the committee had completed the various inquiries, with the last one being completed in May 2022, there remained insufficient time during this term of Parliament to undertake a full and comprehensive inquiry into the planning framework, and it was the majority view of the committee that anything less than a full inquiry would be inadequate. The committee resolved that the report into the Victorian planning framework therefore would be an interim report. As such, the committee has made only one recommendation, and that is that a full inquiry be undertaken at the beginning of the next term of Parliament to ensure that the issues raised in the terms of reference can be given due consideration. So this remains a matter for the next Parliament.

In terms of the timing of the inquiry, it is also worth noting that there are significant reviews being undertaken or recently completed by the Victorian government into elements of the planning framework. All of these changes and reforms would need to be taken into account in any other inquiry.

Additionally, this inquiry was shrouded with confusion, stimulated by a lack of understanding about parliamentary inquiry processes, driven by some who should have known better. For example, there has been commentary that the decision not to hold public hearings was somehow an attempt to close down the inquiry. This misunderstanding was also reflected and perpetuated in some of the written submissions which the committee received, which were apparently of the view that this was a government inquiry rather than a parliamentary inquiry. All of that is simply untrue. The Environment and Planning Committee is a committee of the Parliament that has 10 members, only three of whom are government members. The government does not have any control over this committee and the decisions which are made by the committee.

Also of note is the desire by some crossbench members to draft terms of reference for committee inquiries that really are a burger with the lot. This approach has consequences. By way of comparison, the committee’s major inquiry into ecosystem decline in Victoria, whose report was tabled in December 2021, took more than 12 months to complete and involved 16 full days of public hearings. It was the largest inquiry that the committee had ever undertaken. The inquiry into the planning framework is of a similar size and complexity and would be comparable in terms of the time needed to complete it—if not more. This should serve as a salutary lesson for committee referrals in future, as such large inquiries require a significant commitment of all members’ time and require each and every member’s full attention.

It is the committee’s intention in making its recommendation that the newly constituted committee be referred the terms of reference at the beginning of the new Parliament, when there will be time to undertake all of the necessary steps, including a detailed legislative and regulatory review of the current planning framework as well as extensive public hearings to enable stakeholders and the community to have their say on the issues that matter to them.

Finally, I would like to thank all members of the committee for their time and attention during this inquiry and in particular for their patience regarding the difficulties experienced in terms of timing. I would like to thank the secretariat for their thorough examination of submissions and the work they did in pulling this report together. In particular would like to thank committee manager Michael Baker, inquiry officer Vivienne Bannan, research assistants Hong Tran and Jessica Wescott and the administration team of Sylvette Bassy, Cat Smith and Justine Donohue. I commend this report to the house.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (11:49): I want to thank the committee because what we have produced is a good report. The important thing is that it is only an interim report. The full report, the committee agrees, will follow in the next Parliament. However, this report today draws attention to the urgent need for reforms to planning and heritage.

The first thing to say is there was much disappointment in the community that no public hearings took place. Many of us believe there was adequate time to hear some viable witnesses, but the committee decided otherwise. With over 200 written submissions, what was very evident was the widespread concern at the breakdown of proper planning processes, including environment and heritage protection. There were very few submissions indeed which said the system was in a good state of health.

While the majority of the report covered many concerns of various submitters, some important points needed more coverage. I urge those interested to read my minority report. It includes more evidence in relation to housing affordability. We only ever hear about supply problems, but the problems of Victoria’s unplanned and high rates of population growth are adding hugely to demand, as mentioned in a number of submissions, and these are better reflected in my minority report. I draw attention to five separate submissions about property developer political donations reducing fairness in planning decisions. As well, some further improvements to the heritage system, greater protection for local heritage sites and greater regulation of demolitions were all discussed.

However, it is a very good report. Much reform is needed, and I look forward to that process continuing next year with a full public inquiry that hears evidence from witnesses. That is a must. I wish to thank the committee secretary, Michael Baker, and his hardworking crew for their efforts on this report. I want to thank the committee members and I want to thank all those staff members that Ms Terpstra mentioned. And I want to thank many people who made submissions to this inquiry; the information they provided was invaluable.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:51): I want to make a number of points about this inquiry into the protections within the Victorian planning framework. We supported the reference in the chamber, and it is a pity that the committee’s order of business has not allowed it to do the work that I think it could have done on this. Importantly, I wrote to the committee on behalf of the opposition seeking to have concurrent matters considered, specifically about canopy trees and heritage protections. These are very important points. The committee, in my view, made a mistake in rejecting those important matters which should have been considered concurrently with this explicitly, and I think that, given the massive loss of tree canopy, it is a pity that they did not take that option. It is also a pity, given the very significant loss of heritage buildings, that that matter was also not considered formally concurrently with these matters.

I want to in addition draw attention to one other key matter—and there are many, as has been alluded to. But in the small period of time I have I want to draw attention specifically to the push by the Greens to increase the tax on housing to pay for social housing. Now, I understand the importance of social housing, but I do not want to see the government’s taxes, specifically their big new housing tax, increased in the way that the Greens are proposing. Labor’s proposal, which they have stepped back from, at least temporarily, would have seen a very significant charge and would have resulted in about $20 000 per metropolitan property on a median-priced property—an additional tax layer. The Greens’ proposal is to double that, which would be $40 000 on every median property in the metropolitan area. That would be a massive slug; it would hurt families. And I say neither Labor nor the Greens can be trusted with housing affordability.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:53): I too would like to speak to the tabled report of the inquiry into the protections within the Victorian planning framework. I want to thank everyone who made a submission to this inquiry; the committee secretariat and staff, who have done an incredible job going through a broad range of submissions; and my colleague Mr Hayes for moving the motion for this inquiry to begin and for the opportunity to work together on developing the terms of reference. It is an area of policy interest that we have been working on together.

This inquiry was important because, as so many of us know from talking to our community, Victoria’s state planning system is not producing the type of affordable, sustainable and livable homes that we need for Victoria’s future and is in dire need of an urgent overhaul. This inquiry offered so much promise for a long-overdue deep investigation into Victoria’s planning system and how it could be improved and strengthened, something our community and our local councils have been championing for years on end without much response from government.

Unfortunately the committee made a decision not to hold public hearings, which was quite unprecedented, and it is my view that we would have had the time to be able to conduct public hearings and do more in-depth investigation should the committee have supported this. I know many submitters were deeply disappointed at this decision. Should we have been able to meet with submitters, a full inquiry would have found that Victoria’s land use and planning system is delivering unaffordable, unsustainable and poor-quality urban development and not meeting the challenges posed by climate change.

The system is experienced by many in the community as overly complex and frustrating. There are mechanisms available to increase affordable housing that the government is not making available to us. We need further strengthening of Aboriginal cultural heritage protection and other heritage protection in the community. We need a full parliamentary inquiry, and it is something that I and the Greens will be pushing for in the next term of Parliament.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (11:55): I also rise to speak on the report by the Environment and Planning Committee. I just want to respond to a couple of comments by Mr Davis. Mr Davis does not always like to let the truth stand in the way of a good story. He turned up to the meeting at the last minute. When the reference was made to this committee, the reason the committee was not able to hold hearings in relation to this matter was because of the time frame.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, I did step in as a substitute member because Dr Bach was spending time with his new baby.

The PRESIDENT: You know, Mr Davis, that is not a point of order.

Mr MELHEM: The reason the committee was not able to proceed with full hearings was because of the time frame and the various other references the committee had to deal with. We were running out of time. As members will recall, we have got four weeks to go.

I want to congratulate Mr Hayes on bringing a reference to the committee through the Parliament, and I want to commend the staff for the wonderful work they have done in putting together this discussion paper. Enormous work went into this. Unfortunately we have not been able to have meetings with people who made submissions or to conduct public hearings, as I said, but I think the report itself—it is an excellent report—could form the foundation, as agreed by the whole committee, for the next Parliament, hopefully, to be able to do comprehensive work on this subject, which I am sure is of interest to a lot of Victorians. I will finish off by again thanking all the committee members and also the staff, led by Mike Baker, for the great work they have done. I am looking forward, hopefully in the next Parliament, to basically doing a more extensive inquiry into this issue.

Motion agreed to.